Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Apex]

So.....anyone who agrees with Dawkins is a bigot?

I think you are taking his words a bit too far here.

lilithu put it better,

Yes, Dawkins is smart. He set it up so that those who already agree with him would be willing to overlook the way in which he puts forth the message and those who do not agree with him would be offended, thereby convincing those who already agreed with him that theists are irrational and there's no reasoning with us. The divide is wider than it has ever been, pitting people who otherwise had got long against each other, and hardening lines. Worked great.

 

[gnomon]

I think you are taking his words a bit too far here.

No, I don't think I am. I'll let Pete answer the question.

 

[Willamena]

So.....anyone who agrees with Dawkins is a bigot?

A conclusion extrapolated from the specific case to the general case is called "induction"... can we say it all together? "Induction."

 

[gnomon]

A conclusion extrapolated from the specific case to the general case is called "induction"... can we say it all together? "Induction."

I've asked a question. That's all it is.

It's called implied.

 

[lilithu]

A conclusion extrapolated from the specific case to the general case is called "induction"... can we say it all together? "Induction."

Yeah, but what is it that's being extrapolated?

For example:

Person A: says "Illegal immigrants are taking over our country and we've got to stop them."

Person B: hears person A as saying "Illegal immigration is an issue over which we should be concerned, and this is something we need to address."

Person C: hears person A as saying "I dislike people who are different from me and don't give a rat's behind about why they're forced into coming here illegally."

Person C may consider Person A to be a bigot, but it would be a mistake for Person C to infer from that that Person B is a bigot as well.

 

[Autodidact]

So he did use it that way just to **** people off so he would sell more books. It sounds to me that he was more concerned about making money then making an honest attempt at broaching the subject of religion.

His goal is not to broach the subject, but to mount an argument against it.

 

[Autodidact]

This is why I see him as the Rush Limbaugh of atheism. Who knows WHAT his base motivational factors are: he just wants ATTENTION. Just like Miss Piggy.

Well, since you've already shown yourself to tell out right lies about him and refuse to retract them, I don't think we're too interested in your opinion.

 

[Autodidact]

As I mentioned earlier, he makes this kind of bigotry palatable. Sad that.

And once again, those bigoted statements that you were going to quote for us? No doubt numerous and fresh in your memory, since you're so offended by them?

 

[Scuba Pete]

And once again, those bigoted statements that you were going to quote for us? No doubt numerous and fresh in your memory, since you're so offended by them?

They've ALREADY been quoted, and in this thread. That you don't see them as bigoted tells a lot about you. If you can't bother yourself to read the thread, don't expect me to waste my time doing your leg work for you.

 

[Autodidact]

Scuba, not only could you not find a single quote to back up your scurrilous accusation, but to compound it, you falsely accused Dawkins of being a liar, a second unfounded accusation you could not document. Read the thread(s). Or do I need to post this story here?

 

[DallasApple]

So all those people who CLAIM to be Christians and are not, what is going on there? Lying? Confusion? Delusion? How is this happening, and why would they do that?

And explain to me about people who CLAIM not to be Christian but actually are. How does that work?

In short, what is a Christian?

This is sort of confusing me too?..Who decides for someone else if they are "claiming to be and arent"..or "claim not to be but are"..I mean how do you know?

I mean especially on the latter...Isn't it Christianity 101 to "claim"/"accept" Christ?

Love

Dallas

 

[kerrythekiwi]

Yes, but there's no denying Dawkin has incredible dexterity when it comes to debating his side of the story, whether misguided or not. Personally, I think he's an amazing writer - 'The God Delusion' was the first book I ever read about religion, and whether it was right or wrong. He opened my eyes when he put forward the idea, in 'The Selfish Gene', that our bodies are simply robots for our genes - evolved forms of simple protein shields that genes made to protect themselves when they first came into being.

(I introduced the idea to a friend, who told me it was 'utterly ridiculous' and made humans seem pointless - but when I first read it, an odd burst of joy went through me. I'd never read soemthing so unique.)

So even if his suggestions seem off-key (and I have considered that), I think it's hard not to respect him for what he does.

I'm new to this site, by the way, so sorry if this sounds odd or anything. :help:

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, but there's no denying Dawkin has incredible dexterity when it comes to debating his side of the story, whether misguided or not. Personally, I think he's an amazing writer - 'The God Delusion' was the first book I ever read about religion, and whether it was right or wrong. He opened my eyes when he put forward the idea, in 'The Selfish Gene', that our bodies are simply robots for our genes - evolved forms of simple protein shields that genes made to protect themselves when they first came into being.

(I introduced the idea to a friend, who told me it was 'utterly ridiculous' and made humans seem pointless - but when I first read it, an odd burst of joy went through me. I'd never read soemthing so unique.)

So even if his suggestions seem off-key (and I have considered that), I think it's hard not to respect him for what he does.

I'm new to this site, by the way, so sorry if this sounds odd or anything. :help:

Welcome, Kerry. And it doesn't sound odd or anything. Thank you for sharing. I hope to see more from you.

 

[kerrythekiwi]

Welcome, Kerry. And it doesn't sound odd or anything. Thank you for sharing. I hope to see more from you.

*feels incredibly relived all of a sudden*

I've only used the 'student life' Debate forums on bbc's website before, which is for people only up to 17 years old, and a lot of them shy away from my attempts at debate. I need stimulation, so hopefully this place will be good for me.

 

[Magic Man]

*feels incredibly relived all of a sudden*

I've only used the 'student life' Debate forums on bbc's website before, which is for people only up to 17 years old, and a lot of them shy away from my attempts at debate. I need stimulation, so hopefully this place will be good for me.

I think it will be. I just suggest keeping an open mind, and really listening to what others are saying. We all forget to do that sometimes, but I think the more we can achieve that, the more we will all learn and grow.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, but there's no denying Dawkin has incredible dexterity when it comes to debating his side of the story, whether misguided or not.

I agree. Also, I think he does a remarkable job communicating with his target audience.

He opened my eyes when he put forward the idea, in 'The Selfish Gene', that our bodies are simply robots for our genes - evolved forms of simple protein shields that genes made to protect themselves when they first came into being.

Again, I agree that is a fascinating idea.

I'm new to this site, by the way, so sorry if this sounds odd or anything. :help:

Not at all. Enjoy the Forum, Kerry!

 

[Sunstone]

I think it will be. I just suggest keeping an open mind, and really listening to what others are saying. We all forget to do that sometimes, but I think the more we can achieve that, the more we will all learn and grow.

Pretty damn good advice, for a city kid.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, I don't think I am. I'll let Pete answer the question.

I guess it depends on HOW you agree with Dawkins. Would you consider someone who agreed with things said at a KKK rally bigots? Again, it depends on what they are agreeing with.

The problem is his ability to make hate and prejudice sound almost reasonable. He does it by citing the absolute WORST theists possible. Very few theists are a Pat Robertson, and, fortunately, their are very few atheists who are like Dawkins.

 

[gnomon]

I guess it depends on HOW you agree with Dawkins. Would you consider someone who agreed with things said at a KKK rally bigots? Again, it depends on what they are agreeing with.

The problem is his ability to make hate and prejudice sound almost reasonable. He does it by citing the absolute WORST theists possible. Very few theists are a Pat Robertson, and, fortunately, their are very few atheists who are like Dawkins.

Thanks for the reply.

I guess I'll just have to disagree about other's view of Dawkins. I don't really read or listen to him as much as I do Michael Shermer, Carl Sagan (R.I.P.) and others who focus more on supernatural claims rather than religion vs. ...well...everything.

I didn't think you were calling all those who agree with him of being bigoted and I understand the point of view you are stating.

 

[Magic Man]

I guess it depends on HOW you agree with Dawkins. Would you consider someone who agreed with things said at a KKK rally bigots? Again, it depends on what they are agreeing with.

The problem is his ability to make hate and prejudice sound almost reasonable. He does it by citing the absolute WORST theists possible. Very few theists are a Pat Robertson, and, fortunately, their are very few atheists who are like Dawkins.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the bigotted views and the non-bigotted ones. It seems that you lump all people who agree with anything Dawkins says as just as bad or nearly as bad as he is. The things Dawkins says that come off to you as bigotted seem to influence your view of everything he says.